Trump is preparing for negotiations with Putin over Ukraine as well as with Xi over trade and likely also Taiwan, so he’d appear weak in their eyes if he let a middling leader like Petro publicly defy and even insult him without consequence.
Lol, all you wanted to do was to discuss Trump's tactics in dealing with Colombia on this one thing and how that might indicate he will act in the future, but you dared to suggest that Russia and China might compromise with him, and you implied that Trump cracking down on unchecked illegal immigration is a reasonable thing for a head of state to do.
Uh-oh, thought I to myself, thought I, he's pushed a button. look for conditioned responses in the comments, and there they were.
All I can say is that I find your strategic perspective very valuable.
"Trump therefore had to remind Colombia and every other country in the hemisphere that they’re the US’ junior partner."
Hegemony is not a partnership, nor is a master-slave relationship.
Anyway, much of the objection to Trump was that he blurted the quiet parts out loud. Now that the United States is rapidly dropping the pretense of being anything other than an empire, there no longer is any need to keep up the pious fictions and polite pretenses.
This is why there is no longer such vociferous objection to Trump.
Andrew you missed the fact that these 8 million illegals are the direct result of US Foreign and Economic policies (read sanctions) over the last 70 years. The Migrants coming to America are escaping American imposed Regimes and/ or Sanctions. Gangs such as MS-13 were 'born' in America.
No, I didn't "miss" anything because that's not the focus of my analysis, the outcome of the short-lived US-Colombian dispute and its global reverberations was.
To your point, these people don't have to come to the US since they already passed through several safe countries en route to there, where they're only going for economic reasons.
I also don't believe in collectively punishing the American people just because of what their government did in their name in the region through sanctions and whatnot.
Average people don't deserve to suffer the economic and security consequences of unregulated illegal immigration affecting their local communities.
Why do you think they should suffer those consequences? And do you apply the same standard of collective punishment to all people or only to Americans? Why or why not?
For instance, Hamas did indeed kill some civilians during October 7th regardless of what you think pushed them to do that, so does this justify Israel's collective punishment of Palestine?
I'm certain that you'll disagree but therein lies my point: you'll be making exceptions for your collective punishment standard, which'll expose it as being solely directed against the West.
You presumably also support the same economic and security consequences of unregulated illegal immigration into Europe due to those countries destroying the MENA states, right?
I'm honestly exhausted from the talking points that people are pushing under my posts nowadays. I do analysis, not activism. If you want activism, you won't get it here.
My work analyzes/interprets events and sometimes forecasts what'll come next. I don't really care about making someone or some policy look good or bad.
Your comment shows that you don't even care about the larger point that I'm making regarding the possible impact of this dispute's outcome on global dynamics.
All that you care about is pretending that I missed some talking point that you now want to remind everyone else about because it upset you that it wasn't included in my analysis.
I'm increasingly considering no longer responding to most of the comments here since it's a waste of my very limited time and energy.
Few experts of my caliber (MA and PhD from MGIMO, which is run by the Russian MFA) ever regularly interact with their audience. This is a privilege, not a right.
If you want to continue enjoying this privilege, then you can ask me targeted questions about my work. Pushing more talking points will lead to me revoking this privilege.
Andrew, again you're missing the point. The migrant problem was created by America. These people have nowhere else to go because their countries have been politically, economically and culturally eviscerated by the United States, while successive US Governments have kicked the immigration can down the road for decades. Trump will "collectively punish" average Americans when they realize that about 10 million low paying jobs Americans refuse to do become vacant. As well, the remittances these illegals send back to their families in Mexico, Central and South America will eventually cease and those economies will be plunged into recession.
This week's Colombian/US dispute will pale in comparison to what's coming from the Trump Whitehouse over the next weeks and months, and that's when the "average people" will really suffer..
Liked because you're right, but it isn't Andrew's point. He knows everything you said, and doesn't need to be reminded of it.
He compartmentalizes his stories, zeroing in on a particular incident and explaining the different motivations of the parties involved, and I think he does it very well. Sometimes he misses things because he's Russian, just like I sometimes miss things because I'm American.
He didn't here, though. He was talking about how and why Trump and Colombia did what they did with these immigrant flights, and how this example prepares us for Trump's negotiating tactics down the road, and that was about it.
Trump doesn't negotiate, he's a five time bankrupt who swindles his employees, contractors and anyone he sees as a "Mark". Everything Trump is doing now will come back in spades to bite average Americans in the arse He doesn't negotiate it's that simple.
No one is acting out collective punishment against the American people other than their own elected leaders. This influx of illegal migrants is a direct consequence of U.S. foreign policies enacted by U.S. politicians who were freely elected by U.S. voters.
It is the voters, political parties, U.S. big business, academia etc. that are to blame.
The U.S. has placed 1/3 of the world under internationally illegal U.S. sanctions. Illegally confiscated their wealth, used its power to retard their economic development, interfered in their internal affairs etc. The U.S. has generated its own problems by its illegal and immoral acts abroad then played the victim when the consequences come home to roost.
The U.S. has created an attractive nuisance by making the lives of these people intolerable or impossible in their own countries. The U.S. has a permanent policy of destabilizing other countries so as to prevent them from challenging U.S. hegemony.
America has single handedly generated more refugees worldwide in human history than has any other country.
If America could learn to mind it's own business and stop trying to maintain its place of privilege the world would be a better more peaceful place.
"Thus, it might be better for Russia and China to compromise with the US instead of challenge it". IMO it would be unwise to compromise on anything significant as historically compromise to US is met with additional demands.
Significant compromises are a consistent characteristic of Soviet/Russian-US relations from the time of the first Old Cold War-era arms control pacts.
You're right though, the US unilaterally pulled out of most of them at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean that compromises can't provide temporary relief in their tensions.
If one ignores blusterous rhetoric from Russia, which is mostly for domestic consumption and foreign soft power, you'll see that Russia is very interested in reaching a deal.
After all, that's what the spring 2022 draft peace treaty was all about, a series of compromises (albeit lopsided against Ukraine) for relieving NATO-Russian tensions.
Putin also repeatedly references that agreement and calls for returning to it during future peace talks so he's actually very interested in cutting a deal.
Most Alt-Media won't mention this though since they expect to gain clout, push an ideology, and/or solicit donations by telling people what they want to hear.
And it's that Russia will achieve its maximum objectives without compromising, the US will then enter a doom spiral, etc., but that's all wishful thinking.
The more resistance is from Ukrainians, the more Russians blood is spilled, the more territory is liberated that looks almost like Gaza and needs rebuild, the less interest in the population in Russia for compromise will be. And likely in the leadership. Especially if the compromise involves another war in not a too long time.
Andrew, I see that you are quite tired of some comments. Just want to thank you for the analysis and ask you to keep it going, it's very frustrating to see only wishful thinking and propaganda all over the alt-media.
This case is particular, Petro-Trump immigration dispute, is just another shameful propaganda by the alt-media: I saw lots and lots of posts about how the south is standing against the US, none about how it capitulate in two seconds (only by those who support the US). Most people simply don't pay attention to multiple sides of a narrative and become completely biased.
Thank you, I sincerely appreciate that. I've been producing original analyses daily since the SMO began over 1000 days ago (first at a now-defunct site and now here), never taking a day off, so sometimes certain reactions can throw me off a bit for a brief amount of time.
I wanted to show full solidarity with Russia, where I live and which I sincerely support, but like anyone who's honest, I didn't expect the SMO to carry on as long as it has, but I understand why that is (NATO backing of Ukraine and some Russian shortcomings).
Maybe one day I'll take a break before the whole thing ends, but I've already carried on while moving apartments, through the death of my grandfather who raised me, getting married, having a son, me falling ill sometime back, and other life occurrences.
So I plan to continue publishing original analyses daily till the SMO is over if I can help it, and it's kind comments like yours give me an extra boost to keep going sometimes. Thank you again, Cb.
You write consistently good articles on a wide range of geopolitical topics, making you a valuable source of information. Stay the course and not get sidetracked. It's showtime, Andrew.
That's just the official Chinese position, but we know for a fact that Xi met with Biden, Trump, and Obama before despite the US continuing to arm Taiwan this whole time.
They also talked about Taiwan during Biden's meeting with Xi in late 2023 in SanFran:
So we know for a fact that having this issue on the agenda doesn't impede meeting.
My suggestion to you is to pay less attention to official rhetoric and more attention to political realities. The example that I shared shows that things aren't as simple as you think.
I also find it unfathomable that Xi wouldn't even mildly criticize the US' continued arming of China and its de facto violation of the One China policy.
May I genuinely and respectfully ask why you think that Xi wouldn't do that? China has criticized this approach for years so why would Xi be mum about it during a meeting?
And even if you change your mind and acknowledge the reality of him bringing it up, why do you think Trump wouldn't respond and defend his country's policy on this?
It really seems to me like you're just repeating a talking point without actually understanding the nuances connected to it and how diplomacy actually works.
Taiwan is indeed brought up in Sino-US talks, there's nothing new about this, but sharing that talking point makes it seem like this topic is taboo when it's not.
You can like China and support it on Taiwan while also acknowledging that the island is a subject of discussion during Xi's meetings with various US Presidents.
At the same time, you can also reaffirm China's official position that it's a domestic matter, none of this is mutually exclusive as I proved.
>The Trump Administration rightly considers illegal immigration to be a national security threat
It's better if you don't insert your (silly) opinions- this is just a terrible take. In no way shape or form is illegal immigration a significant national security threat under normal circumstances.
Well we have polar opposite and incompatible worldviews then. I, Trump, and Russia, among many other examples, believe that illegal immigration presents a plethora of economic, political, and security consequences that can be devastating for local communities and countries.
I don't understand why you leftist activists, and that's clearly what you are (I'm not judging, just calling a spade a spade), get so upset over a single word or omission of your expected talking points that you ignore the main points being made in my work in order to come here and complain in the comments.
Okay Jack, you're privilege of interacting with me has been rescinded. I guarantee that you've never had the chance to exchange ideas with an expert of my caliber (MA and PhD from MGIMO, which is run by the Russian MFA, among my other esteemed credentials), which I offer to all but on condition that contrarian ideas are respectfully expressed.
Calling my view "silly" and then dismissing it as a "terrible idea", not to mention confidently imposing your worldview by claiming that mine "in no way shape or form" is accurate, goes against the only terms that I require for continuing to engage with me. You're welcome to continue posting your talking points but don't expect a response.
I'm not blocking you because you're not too rude to justify that, but I'll try to make a mental note never to reply to you again. I don't wish you luck in finding anyone else of my caliber to exchange ideas with because they don't exist and I know this for a fact since I'm very well aware of all main figures in the Alt-Media Community.
I naively thought that folks would appreciate the opportunity to do this and would abide by my only condition, not exploiting it to obnoxiously talk down to me and impose your worldview's talking points while totally ignoring everything else that I wrote. I'm more disappointed in leftists and activists by the day.
And believe me, Jack and whoever else is like him (and I know there are many among you here who've recently made yourselves known), you're impolite comments aren't swaying me to your side by solidifying the righteous of my views. With time, I'll become an even bigger problem for your ideology, and there's nothing that you can do about it.
Let me rub it in: there's no American left in Russia with equivalent academic credentials and you're lying to yourself if you imagine that there isn't a demand for my insight here. After all, while I'm deeply grateful for those who donate to my Substack, my "real job" is as an independent strategic consultant here.
Think whatever you want, and I'm sure most of you will gaslight that this is just me "coping" or even "melting down", but it's actually me rubbing in the fact that I humbly have some degree of influence on certain policy-related conversations here (obviously not much but still better than nothing) and I'll continue using it to oppose your ilk and ideology.
Yes, I can be super toxic when provoked, and that's precisely how I feel right now: provoked by people who know better than to be impolite with their critiques under my posts. Carry on, Jack, keep doing what you do. I enjoy the negative attention, it used to come from "NAFO" but now it comes almost exclusively from leftists, activists, and delusional pro-Russian trolls.
Most Americans believe illegal immigration to be a national security threat, and it certainly is a threat to working class wages, especially those of Latinos. Why do you think a majority of Latino men voted for Trump?
Before you accuse others of silly opinions, t'would be better if you first looked in a mirror.
Fact is, they won’t fall into line, not only because they don’t have to but simply because they have better things to do than lick the boots of a megalomaniac.
G'day Andrew, do you place Colombia and Russia in the same boat in regards capitulation of it's position? Karaganov has a study piece out which I am sure you have read and he suggests the RF is rather an autarky which Colombia surely isn't. Plus it holds nuclear weapons.
Of course not, why would you even think that? You're clearly frazzled about the comparison that I made after mistakenly thinking that I'm calling for Russia's capitulation or suggesting that it'll follow Colombia's lead.
As for Karaganov, most of what he's produced over the past year hasn't come to fruition. It reads as well-intentioned wishful thinking but obviously doesn't resonate with those who actually formulate policy in Russia.
I actually agree in principle with what he suggests for the most part, but I don't misinterpret his words as suggesting that Russia will actually implement the policies that he proposes.
Anyhow, my point --which I'll proudly defend since it reflects reality as it objectively exists and not as some activists wish that it was -- is that Trump can't afford to look weak by letting Colombia publicly defy and insult him.
Why do you think that he could? Your objection to what I wrote and largely irrelevant comparison and question make me think that you reject my point and thus by default are arguing the opposite.
I'd appreciate you clarifying since potshots like this admittedly irritate me after I expect to have thoughtful discussions under these posts instead of having to regularly respond to activist-driven political talking points.
Going forward, I might very well just ignore more such examples of this and let people think whatever they want since few respect the time that I take out of my very busy day (work, family, research, personal life) to respond to them.
Thanks for your comment, I proffered no comment about Colombia but was flummoxed by your comment in isolation and connected it to your comment to Mark W and Russia hence my request for clarification.
I certainly feel Trump is very provocative and surely his actions will have ramifications as his diplomacy is also lacking in nuance just bluster and bullying.
If his posited tariffs have the desired effects on countries such as Colombia if they stood up to his bluster and the currency devalues and are then unable to pay their $US denominated loans and foreclose on said then the shoe is on the other foot. It takes two to make a call in poker.
Then hopefully other nations would follow the lead.
politically, economically and culturally eviscerated by the United States
===
How about they did it to themselves. The fact that you think 500 plus years of their own history gives them no agency is empty, specious and suspect. For example at one point Argentina was neck and neck with the US in terms of development. Anyone with respect for and a passing familiarity with Latin American countries knows about the choices they have made and the unwind of their cultures over history.
What I didn't read about before I read your article was that the flights had previously been agreed to. Thanks! You don't do that to Trump, he has a short fuse and a big blow-up. Reminds me of Teddy R: Walk softly and carry a big stick.
"Thus, it might be better for Russia and China to compromise with the US instead of challenge it if they won’t replicate this policy, or if they lack the same power or will to use it." - That is quite the leap. How are China and Russia anything like Columbia?
That example Trump made out of Petro will reverberate in South America with regards to taking back their undocumented emigres without complaint.
So the Trumpster browbeat Colombia to recant? How many US military flights have landed in Colombia?? Zero, zip, nil. Petro made his point and the petty bully backtracked in a New York second, add the fact that US corn farmers were having none of it.
Sending hard working migrants back home, rightly so? Not so fast, destabilize countries and expect all is kumbaya? Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Economic migrants? Sure, when folks are displaced as the AUC , FARC, ELN, Cartels, and the Colombian army wage a brutal war sponsored by the Empire. Ever heard the term “falsos positivos “? Chiquita Brands relationship with the AUC? The noxious effects of glyphosate? Great argument to label them as “economic “ migrants.
The petty little weasel’s agenda should be obvious, but seems to elude “analysts “. Screw LATAM, Canada, and the EU threatening them with punitive tariffs. Meanwhile, kissing up to Xi Jinping. Invites him to his inauguration, eases the “highly-restrictive” tariffs he campaigned on , pleads his assistance to end the Ukrainian conflict, questions Tik Tok ‘s national security threat. The obsequiousness the wannabe dictator toward the authoritarian strong man is telling , wonder what the grifter is up to???Oh, MAGA merch is red, ain’t that cool, especially when sourced from China …
Trump embraces the Ledeen doctrine: "Every now and again the United States has to pick up a crappy little country and throw it against a wall just to prove we are serious."
Lol, all you wanted to do was to discuss Trump's tactics in dealing with Colombia on this one thing and how that might indicate he will act in the future, but you dared to suggest that Russia and China might compromise with him, and you implied that Trump cracking down on unchecked illegal immigration is a reasonable thing for a head of state to do.
Uh-oh, thought I to myself, thought I, he's pushed a button. look for conditioned responses in the comments, and there they were.
All I can say is that I find your strategic perspective very valuable.
"Trump therefore had to remind Colombia and every other country in the hemisphere that they’re the US’ junior partner."
Hegemony is not a partnership, nor is a master-slave relationship.
Anyway, much of the objection to Trump was that he blurted the quiet parts out loud. Now that the United States is rapidly dropping the pretense of being anything other than an empire, there no longer is any need to keep up the pious fictions and polite pretenses.
This is why there is no longer such vociferous objection to Trump.
Andrew you missed the fact that these 8 million illegals are the direct result of US Foreign and Economic policies (read sanctions) over the last 70 years. The Migrants coming to America are escaping American imposed Regimes and/ or Sanctions. Gangs such as MS-13 were 'born' in America.
No, I didn't "miss" anything because that's not the focus of my analysis, the outcome of the short-lived US-Colombian dispute and its global reverberations was.
To your point, these people don't have to come to the US since they already passed through several safe countries en route to there, where they're only going for economic reasons.
I also don't believe in collectively punishing the American people just because of what their government did in their name in the region through sanctions and whatnot.
Average people don't deserve to suffer the economic and security consequences of unregulated illegal immigration affecting their local communities.
Why do you think they should suffer those consequences? And do you apply the same standard of collective punishment to all people or only to Americans? Why or why not?
For instance, Hamas did indeed kill some civilians during October 7th regardless of what you think pushed them to do that, so does this justify Israel's collective punishment of Palestine?
I'm certain that you'll disagree but therein lies my point: you'll be making exceptions for your collective punishment standard, which'll expose it as being solely directed against the West.
You presumably also support the same economic and security consequences of unregulated illegal immigration into Europe due to those countries destroying the MENA states, right?
I'm honestly exhausted from the talking points that people are pushing under my posts nowadays. I do analysis, not activism. If you want activism, you won't get it here.
My work analyzes/interprets events and sometimes forecasts what'll come next. I don't really care about making someone or some policy look good or bad.
Your comment shows that you don't even care about the larger point that I'm making regarding the possible impact of this dispute's outcome on global dynamics.
All that you care about is pretending that I missed some talking point that you now want to remind everyone else about because it upset you that it wasn't included in my analysis.
I'm increasingly considering no longer responding to most of the comments here since it's a waste of my very limited time and energy.
Few experts of my caliber (MA and PhD from MGIMO, which is run by the Russian MFA) ever regularly interact with their audience. This is a privilege, not a right.
If you want to continue enjoying this privilege, then you can ask me targeted questions about my work. Pushing more talking points will lead to me revoking this privilege.
Andrew, again you're missing the point. The migrant problem was created by America. These people have nowhere else to go because their countries have been politically, economically and culturally eviscerated by the United States, while successive US Governments have kicked the immigration can down the road for decades. Trump will "collectively punish" average Americans when they realize that about 10 million low paying jobs Americans refuse to do become vacant. As well, the remittances these illegals send back to their families in Mexico, Central and South America will eventually cease and those economies will be plunged into recession.
This week's Colombian/US dispute will pale in comparison to what's coming from the Trump Whitehouse over the next weeks and months, and that's when the "average people" will really suffer..
Liked because you're right, but it isn't Andrew's point. He knows everything you said, and doesn't need to be reminded of it.
He compartmentalizes his stories, zeroing in on a particular incident and explaining the different motivations of the parties involved, and I think he does it very well. Sometimes he misses things because he's Russian, just like I sometimes miss things because I'm American.
He didn't here, though. He was talking about how and why Trump and Colombia did what they did with these immigrant flights, and how this example prepares us for Trump's negotiating tactics down the road, and that was about it.
Trump doesn't negotiate, he's a five time bankrupt who swindles his employees, contractors and anyone he sees as a "Mark". Everything Trump is doing now will come back in spades to bite average Americans in the arse He doesn't negotiate it's that simple.
Now you're missing things. Why change the subject?
No one is acting out collective punishment against the American people other than their own elected leaders. This influx of illegal migrants is a direct consequence of U.S. foreign policies enacted by U.S. politicians who were freely elected by U.S. voters.
It is the voters, political parties, U.S. big business, academia etc. that are to blame.
The U.S. has placed 1/3 of the world under internationally illegal U.S. sanctions. Illegally confiscated their wealth, used its power to retard their economic development, interfered in their internal affairs etc. The U.S. has generated its own problems by its illegal and immoral acts abroad then played the victim when the consequences come home to roost.
The U.S. has created an attractive nuisance by making the lives of these people intolerable or impossible in their own countries. The U.S. has a permanent policy of destabilizing other countries so as to prevent them from challenging U.S. hegemony.
America has single handedly generated more refugees worldwide in human history than has any other country.
If America could learn to mind it's own business and stop trying to maintain its place of privilege the world would be a better more peaceful place.
Julian, spot on!
"Thus, it might be better for Russia and China to compromise with the US instead of challenge it". IMO it would be unwise to compromise on anything significant as historically compromise to US is met with additional demands.
Significant compromises are a consistent characteristic of Soviet/Russian-US relations from the time of the first Old Cold War-era arms control pacts.
You're right though, the US unilaterally pulled out of most of them at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean that compromises can't provide temporary relief in their tensions.
If one ignores blusterous rhetoric from Russia, which is mostly for domestic consumption and foreign soft power, you'll see that Russia is very interested in reaching a deal.
After all, that's what the spring 2022 draft peace treaty was all about, a series of compromises (albeit lopsided against Ukraine) for relieving NATO-Russian tensions.
Putin also repeatedly references that agreement and calls for returning to it during future peace talks so he's actually very interested in cutting a deal.
Most Alt-Media won't mention this though since they expect to gain clout, push an ideology, and/or solicit donations by telling people what they want to hear.
And it's that Russia will achieve its maximum objectives without compromising, the US will then enter a doom spiral, etc., but that's all wishful thinking.
The more resistance is from Ukrainians, the more Russians blood is spilled, the more territory is liberated that looks almost like Gaza and needs rebuild, the less interest in the population in Russia for compromise will be. And likely in the leadership. Especially if the compromise involves another war in not a too long time.
Andrew, I see that you are quite tired of some comments. Just want to thank you for the analysis and ask you to keep it going, it's very frustrating to see only wishful thinking and propaganda all over the alt-media.
This case is particular, Petro-Trump immigration dispute, is just another shameful propaganda by the alt-media: I saw lots and lots of posts about how the south is standing against the US, none about how it capitulate in two seconds (only by those who support the US). Most people simply don't pay attention to multiple sides of a narrative and become completely biased.
Thank you for your work
Thank you, I sincerely appreciate that. I've been producing original analyses daily since the SMO began over 1000 days ago (first at a now-defunct site and now here), never taking a day off, so sometimes certain reactions can throw me off a bit for a brief amount of time.
I wanted to show full solidarity with Russia, where I live and which I sincerely support, but like anyone who's honest, I didn't expect the SMO to carry on as long as it has, but I understand why that is (NATO backing of Ukraine and some Russian shortcomings).
Maybe one day I'll take a break before the whole thing ends, but I've already carried on while moving apartments, through the death of my grandfather who raised me, getting married, having a son, me falling ill sometime back, and other life occurrences.
So I plan to continue publishing original analyses daily till the SMO is over if I can help it, and it's kind comments like yours give me an extra boost to keep going sometimes. Thank you again, Cb.
You write consistently good articles on a wide range of geopolitical topics, making you a valuable source of information. Stay the course and not get sidetracked. It's showtime, Andrew.
'Trump is preparing for negotiations with.. Xi over trade and likely also Taiwan'??
There will be no meeting unless Trump agrees not to raise the Taiwan issue, since it is an entirely domestic matter
That's just the official Chinese position, but we know for a fact that Xi met with Biden, Trump, and Obama before despite the US continuing to arm Taiwan this whole time.
They also talked about Taiwan during Biden's meeting with Xi in late 2023 in SanFran:
https://china.usembassy-china.org.cn/readout-of-president-joe-bidens-meeting-with-president-xi-jinping-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-2/
So we know for a fact that having this issue on the agenda doesn't impede meeting.
My suggestion to you is to pay less attention to official rhetoric and more attention to political realities. The example that I shared shows that things aren't as simple as you think.
I also find it unfathomable that Xi wouldn't even mildly criticize the US' continued arming of China and its de facto violation of the One China policy.
May I genuinely and respectfully ask why you think that Xi wouldn't do that? China has criticized this approach for years so why would Xi be mum about it during a meeting?
And even if you change your mind and acknowledge the reality of him bringing it up, why do you think Trump wouldn't respond and defend his country's policy on this?
It really seems to me like you're just repeating a talking point without actually understanding the nuances connected to it and how diplomacy actually works.
Taiwan is indeed brought up in Sino-US talks, there's nothing new about this, but sharing that talking point makes it seem like this topic is taboo when it's not.
You can like China and support it on Taiwan while also acknowledging that the island is a subject of discussion during Xi's meetings with various US Presidents.
At the same time, you can also reaffirm China's official position that it's a domestic matter, none of this is mutually exclusive as I proved.
Thats ridiculous. Colombia is hugely dependant on trade with the US. It was an easy win but looks bad, and will rebound on the US.
>The Trump Administration rightly considers illegal immigration to be a national security threat
It's better if you don't insert your (silly) opinions- this is just a terrible take. In no way shape or form is illegal immigration a significant national security threat under normal circumstances.
Well we have polar opposite and incompatible worldviews then. I, Trump, and Russia, among many other examples, believe that illegal immigration presents a plethora of economic, political, and security consequences that can be devastating for local communities and countries.
I don't understand why you leftist activists, and that's clearly what you are (I'm not judging, just calling a spade a spade), get so upset over a single word or omission of your expected talking points that you ignore the main points being made in my work in order to come here and complain in the comments.
Okay Jack, you're privilege of interacting with me has been rescinded. I guarantee that you've never had the chance to exchange ideas with an expert of my caliber (MA and PhD from MGIMO, which is run by the Russian MFA, among my other esteemed credentials), which I offer to all but on condition that contrarian ideas are respectfully expressed.
Calling my view "silly" and then dismissing it as a "terrible idea", not to mention confidently imposing your worldview by claiming that mine "in no way shape or form" is accurate, goes against the only terms that I require for continuing to engage with me. You're welcome to continue posting your talking points but don't expect a response.
I'm not blocking you because you're not too rude to justify that, but I'll try to make a mental note never to reply to you again. I don't wish you luck in finding anyone else of my caliber to exchange ideas with because they don't exist and I know this for a fact since I'm very well aware of all main figures in the Alt-Media Community.
I naively thought that folks would appreciate the opportunity to do this and would abide by my only condition, not exploiting it to obnoxiously talk down to me and impose your worldview's talking points while totally ignoring everything else that I wrote. I'm more disappointed in leftists and activists by the day.
And believe me, Jack and whoever else is like him (and I know there are many among you here who've recently made yourselves known), you're impolite comments aren't swaying me to your side by solidifying the righteous of my views. With time, I'll become an even bigger problem for your ideology, and there's nothing that you can do about it.
Let me rub it in: there's no American left in Russia with equivalent academic credentials and you're lying to yourself if you imagine that there isn't a demand for my insight here. After all, while I'm deeply grateful for those who donate to my Substack, my "real job" is as an independent strategic consultant here.
Think whatever you want, and I'm sure most of you will gaslight that this is just me "coping" or even "melting down", but it's actually me rubbing in the fact that I humbly have some degree of influence on certain policy-related conversations here (obviously not much but still better than nothing) and I'll continue using it to oppose your ilk and ideology.
Yes, I can be super toxic when provoked, and that's precisely how I feel right now: provoked by people who know better than to be impolite with their critiques under my posts. Carry on, Jack, keep doing what you do. I enjoy the negative attention, it used to come from "NAFO" but now it comes almost exclusively from leftists, activists, and delusional pro-Russian trolls.
Most Americans believe illegal immigration to be a national security threat, and it certainly is a threat to working class wages, especially those of Latinos. Why do you think a majority of Latino men voted for Trump?
Before you accuse others of silly opinions, t'would be better if you first looked in a mirror.
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Fact is, they won’t fall into line, not only because they don’t have to but simply because they have better things to do than lick the boots of a megalomaniac.
The hege-money is floundering.
Colombia already capitulated.
G'day Andrew, do you place Colombia and Russia in the same boat in regards capitulation of it's position? Karaganov has a study piece out which I am sure you have read and he suggests the RF is rather an autarky which Colombia surely isn't. Plus it holds nuclear weapons.
Of course not, why would you even think that? You're clearly frazzled about the comparison that I made after mistakenly thinking that I'm calling for Russia's capitulation or suggesting that it'll follow Colombia's lead.
As for Karaganov, most of what he's produced over the past year hasn't come to fruition. It reads as well-intentioned wishful thinking but obviously doesn't resonate with those who actually formulate policy in Russia.
I actually agree in principle with what he suggests for the most part, but I don't misinterpret his words as suggesting that Russia will actually implement the policies that he proposes.
Anyhow, my point --which I'll proudly defend since it reflects reality as it objectively exists and not as some activists wish that it was -- is that Trump can't afford to look weak by letting Colombia publicly defy and insult him.
Why do you think that he could? Your objection to what I wrote and largely irrelevant comparison and question make me think that you reject my point and thus by default are arguing the opposite.
I'd appreciate you clarifying since potshots like this admittedly irritate me after I expect to have thoughtful discussions under these posts instead of having to regularly respond to activist-driven political talking points.
Going forward, I might very well just ignore more such examples of this and let people think whatever they want since few respect the time that I take out of my very busy day (work, family, research, personal life) to respond to them.
Thanks for your comment, I proffered no comment about Colombia but was flummoxed by your comment in isolation and connected it to your comment to Mark W and Russia hence my request for clarification.
I certainly feel Trump is very provocative and surely his actions will have ramifications as his diplomacy is also lacking in nuance just bluster and bullying.
If his posited tariffs have the desired effects on countries such as Colombia if they stood up to his bluster and the currency devalues and are then unable to pay their $US denominated loans and foreclose on said then the shoe is on the other foot. It takes two to make a call in poker.
Then hopefully other nations would follow the lead.
politically, economically and culturally eviscerated by the United States
===
How about they did it to themselves. The fact that you think 500 plus years of their own history gives them no agency is empty, specious and suspect. For example at one point Argentina was neck and neck with the US in terms of development. Anyone with respect for and a passing familiarity with Latin American countries knows about the choices they have made and the unwind of their cultures over history.
What I didn't read about before I read your article was that the flights had previously been agreed to. Thanks! You don't do that to Trump, he has a short fuse and a big blow-up. Reminds me of Teddy R: Walk softly and carry a big stick.
"Thus, it might be better for Russia and China to compromise with the US instead of challenge it if they won’t replicate this policy, or if they lack the same power or will to use it." - That is quite the leap. How are China and Russia anything like Columbia?
That example Trump made out of Petro will reverberate in South America with regards to taking back their undocumented emigres without complaint.
So the Trumpster browbeat Colombia to recant? How many US military flights have landed in Colombia?? Zero, zip, nil. Petro made his point and the petty bully backtracked in a New York second, add the fact that US corn farmers were having none of it.
Sending hard working migrants back home, rightly so? Not so fast, destabilize countries and expect all is kumbaya? Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Economic migrants? Sure, when folks are displaced as the AUC , FARC, ELN, Cartels, and the Colombian army wage a brutal war sponsored by the Empire. Ever heard the term “falsos positivos “? Chiquita Brands relationship with the AUC? The noxious effects of glyphosate? Great argument to label them as “economic “ migrants.
The petty little weasel’s agenda should be obvious, but seems to elude “analysts “. Screw LATAM, Canada, and the EU threatening them with punitive tariffs. Meanwhile, kissing up to Xi Jinping. Invites him to his inauguration, eases the “highly-restrictive” tariffs he campaigned on , pleads his assistance to end the Ukrainian conflict, questions Tik Tok ‘s national security threat. The obsequiousness the wannabe dictator toward the authoritarian strong man is telling , wonder what the grifter is up to???Oh, MAGA merch is red, ain’t that cool, especially when sourced from China …
Trump embraces the Ledeen doctrine: "Every now and again the United States has to pick up a crappy little country and throw it against a wall just to prove we are serious."
An in-depth analysis, which will prove useful from different angles of strategic perspective to policy planners.